You're viewing a single thread.
Ah yes, good old "Let me post any literal shit because if readers want, they must prove it themself". That's impolite, but understandable. But for God's sake, to post logically malformed statements and wait for readers to indicate it is a whole new level of egoism.
Not tell me, proud democrat, if Russia invaded with its army Ukraine in 2022, then with whom was Ukraine reaching those mystical 20 cease-fire agreements 8 years before? About what were there agreements when there litreally was no Russian army and Ukraine was fighting its own regions for years?
there litreally was no Russian army
This is factually incorrect.
Ok, then why post is calling 2.24.2022 russian invasion when according to you army was already there? More looks like epic russian pull-ups of reserves then?
Russia was supporting problematic regions to stand their own rights with arms and mens but nothing more. There were no official manifestation of russian intrusion. Even in the already mentioned here minsk agreements the main Kyiv opposition signs were from the DPR leader Aleksandr Zakharchenko and LPR leader Igor Plotnitskiy. Russian ambassador Mikhail Zurabov was only sideways witness along with Heidi Tagliavini OSCE representative.
But for God's sake, to post logically malformed statements
What country doesn't have an army? Russia obviously has an army. What else did they invade Ukraine with? The fact that you would leave this to me, the reader, to verify, is frankly ridiculous.
Ukraine and russia were at war in 2014 look up the minsk agreements. In 2022 putin decided the minsk agreements didn't exist and invaded ukraine.
Now before you say anything. This took me 1 minute to look up via google on a wiki page
So proud, err. i guess repulican? Do you feel humbled at all by the evidence to backup ops picture i just provided?
This thing is a bot. Unless they decided that after not commenting on anything for over a year they would bust out anger over Ukraine.
Claiming everyone with another opinion a bot (a metal with no feelings and rights for its own truth) is so democratic.
I do not and never had any anger over Ukraine. I left the comment only to this particular post because it is screaming unproofed propaganda for the dictator Zelensky.
> I do not and never had any anger over Ukraine.
> dictator Zelensky.
That's the whole point. Ukraine ≠ Zelensky.
Just the facts:
- Zelensky didn't stop blood fights in LPR and DPR as he promised.
- Zelensky could prevent war claiming Ukraine won't join NATO.
- Now during the most intelligent Zelensky ruling he lost hundreds of thousands lives of Ukranian soldiers, one fifth country land, nearly all military infrastructure, most of the lands and resources are sold to foreign companies and the Ukraine holds the huge debt of foreign loans.
- A few days back he couldn't even manage a simple conversation and lost the critical USA military support exposing Ukraine's wounds even more.
- Ah, and yes, he is not the legitimate Ukrainian ruler at the moment at all. And moreover he hinders elections at all costs. Doesn't it reminds dictatorship?
For God's sake Zelensky harmed Ukraine not less than Putin. If tomorow Putin resigned Ukraine would have a chance. If tomorow Zelensky resigned Ukraine would have a chance as well.
What have you been doing for a year, then? Do you stand behind Russia and agree that Ukraine gives up its land to Putin, a known dictator? What evidence do you have that Zelensky is a dictator? Don't say elections because as you probably know he is following Ukrainian law by not holding them during war time.
No, Ukraine was victim of a soft coup by the US in 2014, when they installed a far-right puppet regime, and then violated the agreements before moving on to a genocide of ethnic Russians in the Donbas region.
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/6kwrs4pplmwj2nxzy9el73gx2w9cfn
"wikipedia-which-can-be-edited-by-anyone" is of course iron edidence to be humbled by.
But even if you take a little bit more time than just 1 minute to evaluate arguments or at least scroll that same page lower, you will see some interesting facts. Unsurprisingly, Ukraine was never planning to fullfill those agreements and Europe was only depicting diplomatic activity, trying to maximally arm Ukraine. None were giving a damn about people on the problem lands. Yes, they were obviously supported by Russia, but it was support, never ordering, in contrast to Ukraine planning to subjugate separatic regions.
So what again was the diplomatic role of the vaunted give-me-all-your-weapons beggar Zelensky?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#:~:text=Oleksii Arestovych%2C a,its armed forces.
So the line you are referring to:
Oleksii Arestovych, a former member of the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine said in 2024 that Ukraine never planned to fulfill the terms of Minsk II accords.[124]
Is immediately followed up by this section:
Angela Merkel said in 2022 that the agreement had been "an attempt to give Ukraine time"; Reuters reported that Ukraine used this time to strengthen its armed forces.[125] In an interview to Semen Pegov in 2024 former head of DPR Alexander Borodai explained that, in military terms, the Russian intervention in Ukraine should have started already in 2014 but Russia was not ready for that in economic, military and propaganda sense, which is why Russia entered the Minsk Agreements with no intention of complying, but it gave it time to prepare the full-scale invasion.
So it would seem that despite your insistance that the oroginal post is factually incorrect, and despite the fact that it would seem russia also had no intention of complying either. Russia did, in fact, break those agreements, making the original post at least partially correct. Ukraines intentions dont actually change that fact.
I think if you want to argue that the original post it propaganda, you should maybe back it up.
Also, i forgot to say.
How are you going to discredit wikipedia as something that can be edited by anyone and say that makes it an unreliabke source and then point to another paragraph on the same page from the same source and call it evidence to back your argument. Either the source is good or it's bad. You can't have it both ways.